|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The May 27 Select Board meeting perfectly illustrated why Mattapoisett needs to expand from three to five Select Board members — exactly what Town Meeting voted to support on May 12.
Our current three-member structure now presents critical problems in full display. With only three members, just two individuals can make significant decisions. This concentration of power becomes problematic when those same individuals question a democratic vote simply because some residents left afterward, a phenomenon that has occurred at previous controversial votes without anyone questioning those results.
Our Select Board members maintain full-time jobs while serving, which limits their capacity to grow the town’s priorities. A five-member board would distribute responsibilities more effectively, preventing the delays we’re witnessing with this home rule petition.
Massachusetts Open Meeting Law prohibits a quorum from discussing business outside meetings. With three members, no two can collaborate between meetings. Five members would allow two to work together on solutions, clearly needed given the current board’s handling of Town Meeting directives.
When conflicts necessitate recusals, our three-member board becomes a two-member voting body, potentially creating deadlocks. We’re seeing similar dysfunction as the board questions whether to follow Town Meeting’s clear directive, despite one member previously stating he would “support the will of the citizens at town meeting.”
At least 36 Massachusetts towns have successfully expanded their Select Boards. This isn’t experimental — it’s proven governance improvement.
The current Select Board’s reluctance to move forward with the legislative petition suggests a troubling disconnect from democratic principles. Our community deserves governance that reflects our diversity and addresses our needs efficiently.
The Select Board should honor the Town Meeting’s majority vote. More importantly, this situation perfectly illustrates why we need five members making these decisions, rather than just three.
Jeanne Hopkins is a Mattapoisett resident.
The recent opinion piece advocating for an expansion of our Select Board from three to five members misrepresents the situation and overlooks the inherent strengths of our current structure. While framed as a necessary modernization, the push for more board members appears to be a solution in search of a problem, potentially diluting accountability and slowing down effective governance.
The claim that two members hold excessive power conveniently ignores the fundamental principle of majority rule in any democratic body. Decisions require a majority vote, and with three members, this ensures that any action taken has the support of at least two elected officials. Questioning the outcome of a Town Meeting vote due to subsequent departures is a matter of ensuring the integrity of the process, not a symptom of a small board. To suggest this is a unique problem solvable only by adding more members is disingenuous.
The assertion that current board members’ full-time jobs hinder the town’s progress is a common challenge in many small towns reliant on citizen leadership. Adding more part-time members doesn’t magically create more time or expertise. Instead, it risks creating a larger bureaucracy with potentially conflicting priorities and the need for more coordination, potentially leading to more delays, not fewer. The current board has a clear mandate to prioritize and delegate tasks effectively within their existing capacity.
The argument regarding the Open Meeting Law is similarly flawed. The intent of the law is to ensure transparency and prevent backroom deals. While a five-member board would allow for more informal pairings, it doesn’t address the core responsibility of elected officials to communicate openly and transparently during official meetings. Effective collaboration can and does occur within the bounds of the Open Meeting Law through well-structured meeting agendas and clear communication.
The possibility of deadlocks due to recusals exists in any small governing body, regardless of size. Our current system has mechanisms to address such situations, and the occasional need for a special meeting or further discussion is a normal part of democratic deliberation. The current situation regarding the home rule petition is not a result of the board’s size, but rather a disagreement on the interpretation or implementation of the Town Meeting vote.
While other Massachusetts towns have expanded their Select Boards, this doesn’t automatically equate to a universally beneficial model. Each town’s needs and circumstances are unique. Mattapoisett has a long history of effective governance with a three-member board. We should be wary of adopting a larger structure based on anecdotal evidence rather than a clear and demonstrable need.
The charge of a “troubling disconnect from democratic principles” is a serious accusation that lacks substance. The Select Board has a responsibility to carefully consider all aspects of the Town Meeting vote and ensure its proper implementation. This deliberative process is not a rejection of democracy but rather a crucial part of it.
In conclusion, the push to expand the Select Board to five members appears to be a misguided attempt to address perceived issues that are either inherent in any democratic system or can be resolved within our current, efficient structure. Mattapoisett’s focus should remain on electing qualified and dedicated individuals to the existing three seats and supporting their efforts to govern effectively, rather than creating a larger, potentially more cumbersome board based on unsubstantiated claims. We should uphold the current structure that has served our town well.
In New England Town Meeting is the one of the oldest and most critical pieces of participation of democracy. For the will of the voters who attend the meeting to dismissed by the Selectboard is a travesty and demonstrates these members are not working for the people who elected them.
It is a mischaracterization to state that the select board is dismissing the will of the voters who attended the town meeting. Their role extends beyond rubber-stamping every vote taken at town meetings. Their role is to consider the implications for all residents, not just those attended the meeting. They must consider the legality, and practicality of those votes.
To equate careful consideration with dismissal is a disservice to the democratic process and responsible governance. The board must make sure the vote taken is feasible, legal and aligns with the towns goals.
Also please take into account that not all residents can attend town meetings but that does not mean they should not be represented by the board.
In short, due diligence is not a dismissal of democracy, it supports it.
I attended Town Meeting. I also attended the 27 MAY Selectboard meeting and recorded it and have posted excerpts from that meeting. It is 100% accurate that the select board has dismissed the will of the people. I specifically challenged the board regarding their lack of due diligence in understanding the warrant before discussing it. They were not able to answer my question as to why they had not done their due diligence before hand and required correction by a former Selectboard and Town Administrator sitting in the audience. Not being available to attend town meeting is not an acceptable excuse for disenfranchising those who moved their schedules to attend. The vehicle for citizen participate and the highest governing body is the Town Meeting, and not participating is a choice with consequences.
Such a shame that the proper process was followed in order to initiate a citizen’s petition to open discussion and vote at the annual town meeting, only to have current duly elected members of the Select Board indicate that they plan to put roadblocks due to their personal opinions. Sadly, this just reinforces the necessity of expansion.
Ensuring that an alteration of the towns foundational structure genuinely serves the long term interests of our town is not a roadblock it’s responsible governance.
Any changes to the board warrants scrutiny, regardless of who is proposing it. The question that must be answered is: Does this expansion offer a demonstrable improvement in the boards ability to address the town’s needs and represent all citizens effectively?
We must avoid allowing personal ambitions or past electoral outcomes to unduly influence a decision that will impact the future of our town’s governance.
The only focus should be on the merits and drawbacks of this proposal. Taking the time to explore this is not a roadblock.
While I appreciate Silence Dobetter’s opinion that the expansion of the Mattapoisett Select Board from 3 members to 5 members is unnecessary, (‘a solution in search of a problem’), at this juncture that opinion is irrelevant. The time to stand in favor of the status quo, to refute concerns regarding open meeting laws and government efficiency has passed. The voters of Mattapoisett have spoken. The citizens’ petition was properly submitted. It was placed on the warrant. Voters had the opportunity to attend Town meeting, to speak for and against the measure, and to vote. This happened and the Moderator declared the measure passed by a simple majority. A hand count of the vote was not required nor requested. Voters are not required to stay for the entire town meeting in order to cast votes on issues that concern them. The vote has now been certified by the Town Clerk. All that is needed is for the Select Board to follow the will of the people and pass this onto the State Legislature. They may or may not agree with the voters. Again, that is irrelevant. Their consent is expected and appreciated but not required in order to move this forward. I understand that it is disappointing when votes do not go the way one would like, but for the Mattapoisett Board of Selectman to stand in the way of a legitimate vote and silence the will of the people, well, that is unconscionable, and they should do better.
The fact that Silence Dobetter refuses to reveal who they are with their commentary says all you need to know about the opponents of this article. Town meeting voted by a majority to approve this article. The time to argue this point Mr. Dobetter was at town meeting. The town has spoken loud and clear. The select board needs to honor the vote of Mattapoisett residents and send this to the legislature. Their failure to do so will place them in legal peril in several ways.
It is deeply concerning that individuals expressing opinions in this town feel the need to remain anonymous due to fear of reprisal. The assertion that this my anonymity “says all you need to know” about the opponents is a deflection from the actual substance of the debate. In fact, it highlights a potentially toxic environment where dissenting voices are met with intimidation, as I myself have experienced through threats to my job and livelihood – a reality that undermines the very principles of open discussion that Town Meeting is supposed to uphold.
The claim that the time to argue this point was solely at Town Meeting ignores the ongoing responsibility of the Select Board to ensure sound governance. Town Meeting votes are an important expression of sentiment, but the Select Board has a fiduciary duty to the entire town to consider the legal, financial, and practical implications of every decision. To suggest they should blindly rubber-stamp a vote without due diligence is a dangerous oversimplification of their role.
The idea that the town has spoken “loud and clear” overlooks the context of Town Meeting attendance and the potential for a vocal minority to sway votes. The current three-member Select Board was also elected by the residents of Mattapoisett, presumably based on their understanding of who would best represent their interests. This push for expansion, particularly with the well-documented history of its proponents and their electoral defeats, can legitimately be viewed by many as an attempt to circumvent the will of the voters as expressed in those board elections.
As for the claim of legal peril, while I am not a legal expert, it’s important to clarify the potential legal arguments. The Select Board could face legal challenges if they were to ignore a clear and legally binding directive from Town Meeting. However, their current actions appear to be those of deliberation and seeking to understand the full ramifications of the vote, which is a responsible exercise of their duties. Legal peril might arise if they acted arbitrarily or in bad faith, but engaging in thoughtful consideration is not inherently illegal. It’s more likely that legal questions could arise from the implementation of a five-member board, particularly concerning the process of establishing the new seats and potential impacts on existing terms and election cycles.
Furthermore, the suggestion that failing to immediately forward the article to the legislature constitutes legal peril seems premature. The Select Board has a right, and arguably a responsibility, to conduct due diligence before taking such a significant step. Rushing the process could expose the town to greater legal vulnerabilities down the line.
Instead of resorting to intimidation and pronouncements of legal jeopardy, proponents of the expansion should engage in respectful dialogue and address the legitimate concerns about the necessity and potential consequences of this change. While they have pointed to other Massachusetts towns that have adopted larger Select Boards, they have failed to provide any concrete evidence or data demonstrating the specific benefits those towns have experienced as a direct result of this expansion. Simply stating that other towns have done it does not automatically validate it as the right course of action for Mattapoisett. We need a clear articulation of the problems a five-member board would solve for our town and demonstrable evidence that the benefits would outweigh the potential drawbacks. Dismissing opposing viewpoints and resorting to threats only serves to further divide our community and undermine the democratic process we all claim to value.
Mr. Dobetter, I’m not sure you understand the law that applies to this case and the fact that the select board conceded last night that their legal guidance supporting any resistance to upholding the will of town meeting was flawed at best. They have no further role in this matter. None. Town meeting was the legal mechanism by which this change in our form of governance could be effectuated. Not by subsequent ballot vote during a town election. Not by subsequent reviews and analysis. The proponents of this article wrote many op eds in numerous publications and opponents had every opportunity to show up, at town meeting to make their case which you now think the select board should do after the fact. This article was on a publicly posted warrant weeks in advance of town meeting for the residents of Mattapoisett to review, research and be prepared to present on at town meeting. There was opposition including an effort to tank the article all together which was overwhelmingly voted down. None of the points the opponents made were argued convincingly and there were more residents who showed up and voted in favor than those who opposed for whatever reasons they might have had. That is how town meeting works. That is how democracy works majority rules. The select board agreed last night that town meeting had the final say on this issue and it’s why they are no longer an obstacle to moving this to the legislature. Maybe when you wrote this you had not heard about what happened on June 10. I believe the voters of Mattapoisett by virtue of their passing this article by a majority vote have articulated exactly why we need an expansion. Inclusion, diversity of view point and avoidance of conflicts of which there have been many. Would it surprise you to learn that of 27 meetings held last year, 9 of them only had 2 members of our board present. That’s 1/3 of the meetings where we did not have adequate representation and that is just for 2024. Who knows how many meetings could not be scheduled because there would not be a quorum. I’m sorry you don’t like the results of town meeting but voting and elections have consequences. For the town of Mattapoisett, this past town meeting vote to expand our select board will have a positive impact on our community and open up our town government to more people with skillsets which can be valuable to moving our town forward rather than remaining at a status quo. That’s a really good thing and the majority of voters at town meeting agreed.
To Ms. Demakis, thank you for your follow-up. I appreciate the detailed explanation of the events and the legal perspective as you understand it.
To clarify my earlier comments, I want to state that my focus was neither to support nor oppose the expansion of the Select Board itself. My primary concern was regarding the process, and I supported the Select Board taking the time for due diligence to understand all aspects and potential ramifications before moving forward with such a significant change to our town’s governance structure. It felt inaccurate to characterize their initial caution as a ‘troubling disconnect from democratic principles,’ as the original post did. Responsible governance often requires careful consideration and is not necessarily a rejection of the voters’ will.
Regarding the matter of anonymity and being addressed as ‘Mr. Dobetter,’ I’d simply like to say that my reasons for not revealing my identity are based on personal considerations. The sign-off I used was a pseudonym chosen for the purpose of these discussions.
It’s interesting to hear about the Select Board’s discussion on June 10th and their current stance. If they have indeed concluded that Town Meeting had the final say and are moving forward, that addresses a key procedural point.
The points you raise about quorum issues and the potential for broader representation with an expanded board are certainly important aspects to consider in this discussion. Ultimately, the town will move forward based on the democratic processes in place.
Mr. Silence DoBetter,
You’ve spent a great deal of time commenting on this issue. However, it’s clear there’s a disconnect in your understanding of the home rule petition process. Thankfully, several individuals with the necessary expertise have contributed to help clarify the facts and provide much-needed education to the public.
Let this be a learning experience.
Thanks Silence. I can appreciate your concern for due diligence as I’m equally concerned and likely for some of the same reasons as you. Hope you can identify yourself and we can have a civil discussion about potential candidates who we will need to find for the May 2026 election when 3 seats will open. I promise you, contrary to popular belief, I will not be one of them. ✌️
Response to “Silence Dobetter”
Thank you for your detailed response. While I appreciate different perspectives on governance, several of your points warrant clarification.
On Democratic Accountability: You suggest that questioning a Town Meeting vote ensures “integrity of the process.” However, Town Meeting is our legally established form of local government. When the Select Board questions a properly conducted majority vote—something they didn’t do when voters left after previous controversial decisions like the “nips” vote—it undermines the very democratic process you claim to defend.
On Workload and Expertise: You dismiss the capacity issue as “common in small towns” but miss the fundamental point. Our current board members acknowledge being stretched thin with full-time jobs. Adding members doesn’t just add more people—it adds more diverse expertise, perspectives, and bandwidth. Your suggestion that this creates “bureaucracy” ignores that 36+ Massachusetts towns have successfully made this transition, demonstrating improved rather than hindered governance.
On Open Meeting Law: You misunderstand the practical impact. Currently, no two members can discuss town business between meetings without violating the law. With five members, two could collaborate on solutions, research, and preparation—significantly improving meeting quality and efficiency. This isn’t about “backroom deals” but about better preparation for transparent public discussion.
On the Current Situation: You claim the home rule petition delay represents “disagreement on interpretation,” but one Select Board member explicitly promised to “support the will of the citizens at town meeting.” The delay appears less about interpretation and more about reluctance to follow through on a clear democratic directive.
On Proven Success: While you call evidence from other towns “anecdotal,” 36 successful expansions represent a substantial track record. This isn’t experimental—it’s a proven governance improvement that towns have adopted after careful consideration of their specific needs.
On “Troubling Disconnect”: When elected officials delay implementing a clear Town Meeting vote while questioning its validity using standards they didn’t apply to previous votes, that does represent a concerning departure from democratic norms.
Your argument essentially boils down to “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But the May 27 Select Board meeting—and their handling of a straightforward democratic directive—suggests our current structure does have significant limitations.
The question isn’t whether our current board members are good people trying their best. The question is whether our governance structure serves our evolving community’s needs effectively. The evidence suggests it doesn’t.
Democracy isn’t just about maintaining the status quo—it’s about ensuring our institutions can adapt to serve the people effectively. That’s exactly what expanding to five members would accomplish.
It should be noted that at that same Town Meeting only 2 of the 3 Selectboard members were present. Which again is perfect example of why the selectboard needs to be expanded.
Question for “Silence” (whomever you are). I have had a bit of experience over the years with town meetings and how their votes on home rule petitions are then reflected in action by the Legislature and Governor in several hundred different situations, including of course, Mattapoisett. You wrote that the Select Board is not supposed to be a “rubber stamp” for a majority vote at a Town Meeting in favor of a home rule petition. That phrase caught my eye, and I am not able to find any statutory or state constitutional support for your statement. Please point me to the legal basis for your statement if you can.
Thank you, Representative Straus, for your thoughtful inquiry and for your decades of dedicated service to the Commonwealth and our community. Your extensive experience in the Legislature, particularly your understanding of how home rule petitions are handled, makes your question especially valuable..
When I used the phrase ‘rubber stamp,’ I was using a simpler term, or a colloquialism to express the idea that the Select Board’s role involves more than just automatically forwarding the vote.
Given your extensive legal and legislative experience, particularly your deep understanding of how home rule petitions are viewed in the Legislature, I would certainly defer to your expertise on the finer points of the legal obligations here.
However, even without citing a specific statute using that exact phrase, it seems clear that their broader duties as Select Board members require them to do more. They are responsible for considering the best interests of the entire town, ensuring any action is legally sound, financially responsible, and practically workable.
So, while the Town Meeting vote is very important, the Select Board needs to review it carefully to ensure it’s the right step for Mattapoisett in the long run. They have a responsibility to the whole town, a judgment that must surely include consideration of legal ramifications, an area where your experience is invaluable.
You also noted “(whomever you are),” and I understand the curiosity. As I mentioned before, my decision to comment anonymously stems from concerns about potential repercussions for expressing my views.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. The role of select board members, as you say, is an important one. On this one though, the Massachusetts Constitution is clear that the local vote of importance is by Town Meeting. The select board members are free to have views of their own about the relative merits of any question before Town Meeting, but once that vote is completed, they have no legal role in deciding whether the matter is then to be transmitted to the Legislature. My understanding is that our select board members have now recognized that distinction so that the question of expanding the board will be going to Beacon Hill. Individuals, including members of the Board remain free, of course, to support or oppose the petition during the hearing and debate process to come. Again, thanks for your engagement on this.
Thank you again, Representative Straus, for your thoughtful clarification and for pointing to the constitutional clarity regarding the primacy of the Town Meeting vote in this matter. Your explanation of the Select Board’s role following the vote and the process moving forward to the Legislature is very helpful and appreciated.